Isn't this more about things falling apart when the person wanted to continue doing it? If I want to run a shop but it doesn't work financially, then my plan has failed.
Microblog Memes
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
Yeah, I think you're right here: it's all about intent. If someone starts a business, it does well, but then they end it because they want to do something else, is not a failure. If they wanted the business to keep going, but people weren't buying enough of their product to keep the doors open, that's a failure.
You could do the same with any of the examples. It's not a failure if the people are happy to stop or it lasted as long as could reasonably be expected, but if it ends before the people wanted it to, that's a failure. The rocket that lifts its payload to orbit, then shuts off and falls back to earth is a success. But no one says "Well, the rocket ran great halfway to the planned orbit, so even though it and the payload fell back to earth, it was successful."
Yeah, the OOP is a serious cope. They are basically saying "nothing is ever a failure in the world of unicorn sprinkles, weeeeee!" They are invalidating people's negative emotions about failure by trying to reframe it - but this is the behavior of narcissists who never want to admit they have failed at anything.
It's okay to fail. It sucks. It hurts. It happens. That's life. Accept it, learn from it, and move on.
I think you are looking into things in a non healthy way.
You are right that success and failure are not binary. Furthermore, every system, be it physical, living, or social, fails sooner or later.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to not fail for as long as possible, for if something brings joy or safety it's continued success is important. It follows that if something that's important to someone fails it's healthy to morn it and to try to learn from it to not repeat the same failure.
why do you call it "fail" when you mean "end"?
Because I mean fail and trying to frame everything as positive, or at worst, neutral is not healthy and will lead to people not acknowledging their feelings?
There are failures and there are endings. Not being able to cope with a failure is not healthy. Calling everything that ends automatically a failure is not healthy either.
Agreed, the flip side is allowing something ending to be sad too. Not everything needs a positive spin.
This just reads to me like a classic step of linguistic evolution, where people can't be bothered to caveat the normal word with a deeper meaning (eg "my business ultimately ended, but it was the right call and it was always be a great time in my life..." etc) and so think a new word is necessary, until inevitably the same thing happens, ad naseum.
This is nice ways of saying you can change perspective on things by using more appropriate words. At no point do your viewpoints clash with op. But success and failure can certainly be binary if you want. They are words and mean different things for different people, and we hope to sometimes communicate a specific point and sometimes a philosophical one. It can be used for much. Failure as a word is useful but also touchy for a lot of modern achievers, or sofa enjoyers. It can be oh so binary for some people. Like, did you vote and try to prevent the faschist uprising that will ruin your life? It's a yes or no and one of those are very much a failure. If you don't want to see your failures you will become like the wounded manchildren that has need to use power and assert dominance to exist. At that point there's not much left of the reflection you wrote about. It's an antithesis for the practice.
Seems to me a logical extension from our capitalist (line must go up) and Christian (stay in line or go to hell) cultural shit pile of a country.
The best definition of success I heard was from Earl Nightingale -
Success is the progressive realization of a worthwhile goal.
Doing something because you want to do it--and it betters yourself, your family, or your community--makes you successful.
Forever is a very long time
we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.
I really don't agree with the premise, and would encourage others to reject that worldview if it starts creeping into how they think about things.
In the sports world, everything is always changing, and careers are very short. But what people do will be recorded forever, so those snapshots in time are part of one's legacy after they're done with their careers. We can look back fondly at certain athletes or coaches or specific games or plays, even if (or especially if) that was just a particular moment in time that the sport has since moved on from. Longevity is regarded as valuable, and maybe relevant to greatness in the sport, but it is by no means necessary or even expected. Michael Jordan isn't a failed basketball player just because he wasn't able to stay in the league, or even that his last few years in the league weren't as legendary as his prime years. Barry Sanders isn't a failed American football player just because he retired young, either.
Same with entertainment. Nobody really treats past stars as "failed" artists.
If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you're a “failed” writer.
That is a foreign concept to me, and I question the extent to which this happens. I don't know anyone who treats these authors (or actors or directors or musicians) as failures, just because they've moved onto something else. Take, for example, young actors who just don't continue in the career. Jack Gleeson, famous for playing Joffrey in the Game of Thrones series, is an actor who took a hiatus, might not come back to full time acting. And that's fine, and it doesn't take away from his amazing performance in that role.
The circumstances of how things end matter. Sometimes the ending actually does indicate failure. But ending, in itself, doesn't change the value of that thing's run when it was going on.
| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good.
Exactly. I would think that most people agree, and question the extent to which people feel that the culture values permanence. If anything, I'd argue that modern culture values the opposite, that we tend to want new things always changing, with new fresh faces and trends taking over for the old guard.
does anyone already have a better screenshot of the post? i wanna save one but not a jpeg thats this crispy
Some things I think we want to aim at for our entire lives, and those things are good in and of themselves even if we don't achieve them.
I think getting good nutrition, staying in a healthy state/sustaining or increasing our health span so we aren't sick, exercising so we can still get out of bed every day, seeking novelty and variety in the things we do, exploring new places, learning about the world around us and ourselves, sharing all of these things meaningfully with others on a similar journey, and even defending things that mean a lot to us are some examples of this.
The idea that these experiences must last eternally was something Nietzsche talked about this in his works. He rejected Plato's notion of the Forms as well as many religions' concepts of a life after death - this "other world". To Nietzsche, the good life in this world is defined by how far life can stray from its best moments, and that working through hardships and recognizing that they aren't permanent gives us the power of freedom.
Good times must be accompanied by bad or even mediocre times. Good times lasting forever are no different than bad or mediocre times lasting forever. So yeah, writing that book or making that friendship/relationship can be a good thing. And if those things aren't perfect, we have more reason than enough to make them better. Whether that's work shopping the book until it gets better or starting over with fresh new ideas. Whether that's meeting new people and developing those friendships over time, or leaving them for new friendships when other people don't want to reciprocate. I like to think of so many people wishing for good times to last forever are lazy and just don't want to put in the effort to change, which in my view is the whole point.
This reminds me of Sand Mandala
Once complete, the sand mandala's ritualistic dismantling is accompanied by ceremonies and viewing to symbolize Buddhist doctrinal belief in the transitory nature of material life.
Yup. And god forbid you start a small business that's successful and decide to pay your employees a good wage and set aside a fair amount of profit for yourself. That's loser talk. You need to go public or sell the business for a giant payout at the expense of your employees, and then you have to keep making more money every year for shareholders, or else they'll consider you a failure and jump ship
While this is true, it stands in contrast to the similar message co-opted to justify or cope with planned obsolescence in gaming. Chess and Odysseus can be good for centuries, so can some mechanical or story based video games.
Dan Savage (of the sex and relationship advice podcast "Savage Lovecast") says this frequently.
A short term relationship can also be successful. It doesn't have to end with one of the partners dying in order to be considered good and worthwhile.
Idk, being sad about and grappling with the impermanent nature of things is kinda a fundamental part of being human.
I totally disagree with your characterization. I can come up with dozens of examples of how people don't think that the goal is "forever". That's not to say that you're lying, if you feel it then no doubt your feelings are genuine, but I don't think your feelings are a good reflection of contemporary society at large.
On Wikipedia, an article for a deceased person reads, “[The deceased] was,” while an article for a TV show that has ended reads, “The Office is”
Feels kinda related in some way
That seems to me more just a linguistic quirk of how English works.
You can blame George Lucas and Star Wars for this.
Do or do not there is no try.
Yoda
that's not really what this is about...